TPM52_p89-93_Forum_obituary
15/11/10
20:24
Page 89
Experimental philosophy has received a great deal of attention in scholarly
journals and the popular media. Often the topic of these articles is
precisely what I claim is a non-issue – the value of experimental
philosophy as a movement. And here I am writing about this same topic
yet again. But I am not going to provide another argument for an obvious
position. Instead, I’m writing this as an obituary – an obituary for the
so-called controversy about experimental philosophy, and an attempt
to diagnose how it lived as long as it did.
forum/obituary
In memoriam:
the x-phi debate
TAMLER SOMMERS PAYS HIS RESPECTS
bout a year ago I was asked to write
And so forth. But I couldn’t do it. I could not
an accessible magazine article
get myself to write an essay about the general
about experimental philosophy.
debate over experimental philosophy. At the
The piece, as I conceived it, would
time, I had no idea why it was so difficult, but I
A
begin along these (somewhat histrionic) lines:
think I do now. Debates are interesting when
The controversial new movement called
there is more than one reasonable position to
experimental philosophy – “x-phi” as it has
hold. A debate about whether a particular
come to be known – has generated both
instance of hate speech should be protected by
excitement and hostility in the philosophical
federal law might be interesting. A debate about
community. Questions abound: Is experimental
the value of freedom of expression laws in
philosophy the wave of the future or just
general is not. On the question of the general
a passing fad? Can probing for the intuitions
value or viability of experimental philosophy,
of the “folk” tell us anything about philosophical
there is only one reasonable position. This
truth? Are philosophers qualified to conduct
empirical studies, or should this be left to
the psychologists?
89
Tamler Sommers is assistant professor of
philosophy at the University of Houston
1ST QUARTER 2011
tpm n
This article originally appeared in issue 52 of tpm. You can subscribe at www.tpmagora.com
>>>
TPM52_p89-93_Forum_obituary
15/11/10
20:24
Page 90
makes it an exceptionally boring debate, and
fruitful and interesting, to be genuine debates,
who wants to write about that?
they must be about the details and implications
That said, many smart people perceive the
of particular experiments within the literature
disagreement on this issue to be legitimate.
and not about the potential or in principle
Experimental philosophy has received a great
importance of the movement as a whole.
forum/obituary
deal of attention in scholarly journals and the
reasonable
is precisely what I claim is a non-issue – the
philosophy in general, here it is. Of course,
value
a
experimental philosophy can make important
movement. And here I am writing about this
contributions to philosophical inquiry. I’ll give
same topic yet again. But I am not going to
just two reasons, but there are many more. First,
provide another argument for an obvious
a sizable percentage of philosophical arguments
position. Instead, I’m writing this as an obituary
rely on both implicit and explicit appeals to
– an obituary for the so-called controversy about
intuitions
experimental philosophy, and an attempt to
Philosophers often assume the reader will have
diagnose how it lived as long as it did.
a certain intuition, and they use this intuition as
of
experimental
philosophy
as
Actually, I might be a little late to the game.
position
about
about
cases
and
experimental
principles.
evidence for the truth of key premises in their
experimental
arguments. They go on to draw substantive
philosophy in the New York Times blog forum
philosophical conclusions on the basis of these
“Room for Debate” (August 19, 2010) was if not
intuitions. If experimental inquiry reveals that a
an obituary then a strong signal that the issue
large portion of reflective people have different
was on life support. The blog featured
intuitions, then the philosopher must either
perspectives from six philosophers, both “for”
explain away this disagreement or concede that
and “against” the new movement. The only
the argument’s application is restricted to the
problem was that they all seemed to agree about
group of people who have the same intuition as
the subject under discussion. The unanimous
the philosopher. This would be a philosophically
verdict was that experimental philosophy, as a
important concession.
The
90
For those who are unfamiliar with the only
popular media. Often the topic of these articles
recent
instalment
on
matter of principle, could offer important
Now as many x-phi opponents will stress, not
insight on deep philosophical problems. Room
every philosopher develops arguments that
for debate? There didn’t seem to be any. To the
appeal to intuitions – indeed, some are positively
extent
it
suspicious of this practice. It’s not clear that it is
concerned the quality of the existing literature.
even possible to develop substantive intuition-
But since no one could discuss specific studies
free arguments in some areas (ethics, for
or articles – this was a debate about x-phi in
example). But suppose that some philosophers
general, remember – no one could provide a
are successful in doing so – so what? This would
shred of support for their views on that matter.
only mean that experimental work on intuitions
What I learned from the exchange was this: for
cannot have a direct impact on those arguments.
debates about experimental philosophy to be
The work would still have a potential effect on
that
there
was
disagreement,
n tpm 1ST QUARTER 2011
This article originally appeared in issue 52 of tpm. You can subscribe at www.tpmagora.com
TPM52_p89-93_Forum_obituary
15/11/10
20:24
Page 91
the large majority of philosophical arguments
nothing
that (often frankly) include such an appeal. No
experimental results.”
one believes that for a subfield of philosophy to
So
relevant
if
can
people
still
be
learned
wonder
from
whether
have value, it must bear on every single area and
experimental philosophy can offer insights on
argument in our discipline.
deep philosophical questions, you can offer
something like the above replies to convince
them. (If the person concedes these points but
philosophical intuitions and the psychological
presses you as to whether experimental
mechanisms that underlie them. Shedding light
philosophy is really philosophy, I suggest
on the psychology behind our philosophical
backing away slowly and avoiding that person in
beliefs can have important philosophical
the hallways in the future.) A question remains
implications for how we regard these beliefs.
though: why does the controversy exist in the
Just what these implications are is a matter of
first place? Why so much hostility directed at
legitimate debate (and a fascinating one).
experimental philosophy in journals and blogs?
Whether there are any implications at all is not.
Why don’t we find similarly heated debates over
To take just one example, imagine that
the value of metaontology, philosophy of
Nietzsche were correct that conventional
mathematics, and philosophy of law?
Western
morality
grew
of the resentment of a weak
and oppressed people. This
would
tell
something
us
philosophically
interesting
out
Part
of
the
explanation,
I believe, involves the mistaken
impression that experimental
philosophers
radicals
who
are
secret
want
to
about our moral beliefs and
revolutionise the profession,
attitudes, even if we need
replacing good old-fashioned
sophisticated
philosophical
philosophical argumentation
analysis to figure out what.
with surveys, brain scans, and
And
reasoning
data analysis. Williamson, for
applies to all the core areas of
example, writes the following
philosophical
in his blog entry:
the
staunch
same
inquiry.
x-phi
As
“opponent”
“The real issue concerns
Timothy Williamson writes in
the most effective way for
the NY Times blog: “when it
each side to learn from the
comes
other. There are philosophy-
to
philosophical
questions about how we
hating philosophers who
gain
would like to replace the
knowledge
from
forum/obituary
Second, much of the experimental literature
aims to examine – the origins of our
perception, memory and
traditional methodology of
reasoning, it would be
philosophy, with their stress on a
crazy to suggest that
combination of abstract reasoning and particular
1ST QUARTER 2011
tpm n
This article originally appeared in issue 52 of tpm. You can subscribe at www.tpmagora.com
91
>>>
TPM52_p89-93_Forum_obituary
15/11/10
20:24
Page 92
examples, by something more like imitation
forum/obituary
psychology.”
experimental philosophy – what Jonathan
Now I am acquainted with dozens of
Weinberg refers to as “the negative program” – is
experimental philosophers, including the ones to
not the only focus, or even the primary focus, of
whom Williamson is likely referring, and they
the movement. Experimental philosophy is a
love philosophy as much as anyone diligently
large and diverse field. Many experimentalists
cranking out counterexamples to the view of
accept the dominant methodology for the most
knowledge as justified true belief. It is true, as
part and design their studies to work within that
Williams
experimental
tradition. Most experimental work on free will
philosophers are on the attack. But their target is
and moral responsibility, for example, seeks to
not philosophy in general. Rather, it is a
supplement rather than subvert “armchair”
particular methodology within philosophy – the
approaches to the topic. And the so-called
use of the philosopher’s own intuitions about
armchair philosophers in the field tend to
cases
embrace
notes,
and
that
principles
some
as
evidence
for
their
experimentally
oriented
philosophical truth. The experimentalists issue
colleagues. But no one, whatever the focus of
this challenge not because they hate philosophy,
their work, seeks to replace philosophy with
but because they believe that the traditional
psychology, imitation or real. As x-phi pioneer
methodology
empirically
and prodigy Joshua Knobe likes to stress,
implausible assumptions about the universality
is
grounded
in
experimental philosophy is not a revolutionary
and stability of the intuitions. It is a philosophical
movement; it is a return to tradition, to the
challenge at its core, even if it is motivated by
naturalistic approach of Aristotle and Hume.
empirical research into the nature of intuitions.
Of course, attacks on the “traditional
92
It’s also worth noting that this strand within
I return to the question then: why has this
non-issue
generated
heated
debate
and
methodology” existed long before anyone
antagonism? Again, I turn to Williamson’s entry at
conceived of experimental philosophy as a
the NY Times blog for clues:
movement. Nietzsche and Rorty, for example, are
“[E]xperimentalists draw lessons for morality
two of its sharpest critics. Further, the founding
from the results of brain scans in comically naive
document of the contemporary experimental
ways, without realizing how many philosophical
challenge
book
assumptions they are uncritically relying on in
Deconstructing the Mind – is not itself a piece of
their inferences – precisely because they neglect
experimental philosophy. Rather, the book sets up
traditional philosophical skills in making
the following hypothetical: if there is substantial
distinctions and assessing arguments. The danger
variation about intuitions concerning reference,
is that the publicity such crude work attracts will
then serious problems are raised for traditional
give a bad name to constructive developments in
debates in philosophy of mind (e.g. eliminativism
which experimental results really do cast light on
vs. functionalism). What the experimental
philosophical questions. (my italics)”
–
Stephen
Stich’s
1996
philosophers have attempted to show is that this
variation indeed exists.
These remarks, in my view, get to the heart
of the problem that x-phi opponents have with
n tpm 1ST QUARTER 2011
This article originally appeared in issue 52 of tpm. You can subscribe at www.tpmagora.com
15/11/10
20:24
Page 93
the movement. Experimental philosophy, they
believe, is attracting far more attention than is
warranted by the quality of its output. The issue
GOD (y)
TPM52_p89-93_Forum_obituary
does not merely concern the perceived lack of
rigour in parts of the literature. Every subfield of
philosophy including the core areas has examples
FREE WILL (x)
of crude arguments and sloppy reasoning. But
magazines and newspapers tend not to run
features on externalist approaches to meaning or
the principle of sufficient reason.
however, experimental philosophers are simply
defending their work and approach against the
have spent my career working on the free
broad-scale attacks of their opponents. But if
will/moral responsibility problem. Every week, it
general sweeping criticism of the movement as a
seems, there is a new article in a popular venue
whole is unreasonable, then repeated sweeping
in which a neuroscientist blithely claims to have
defences are unnecessary – or at least
solved the free will problem in a couple of
uninteresting. The issue resembles in some ways
paragraphs. (Often there’s a snide remark about
the controversies over evolution. There are
philosophers thrown into the mix as well). It’s
innumerable
infuriating to all of us who work seriously on the
evolutionary biology itself, but one quickly grows
topic. It’s a sad fact of life that some work is good
weary of the general defences of Darwinism
and some work is sloppy, and that the sloppiest
against the attacks of creationists and intelligent
work often garners the most public attention. It
design theorists. There is nothing to be gained
seems to me, however, that the right way to deal
from such defences but confirmation of what we
with “crude work” is either to ignore it or to
already know. In my perfect world, experimental
specifically address its flaws. It’s tempting for me
philosophers would restrict their discussions to
and my colleagues (including the experimental
specific studies and the implications they draw
philosophers among us) to act dismissively
from them – even in venues geared towards
towards entire disciplines because of the
wider audiences. And this is largely what is
simplistic analyses of a few of its practitioners.
happening, which is why this essay is best
But we do so at our peril – much insight can be
regarded as an obituary. The debate over
gained from high quality interdisciplinary work
experimental philosophy, if it ever really existed,
on long-standing philosophical problems.
has reached its fitting end. It is time for
How about the experimental philosophers
fascinating
debates
within
philosophers everywhere to move on.
themselves – are they partly responsible for
extending the life of this debate? Perhaps. It is
The x-phi debate is survived by articles in the New
only natural to court controversy when
York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education,
controversy attracts so much attention within
Prospect, Slate, many scholarly journals, and
and outside the philosophical community. Often,
countless blog posts, forums, and podcasts.
1ST QUARTER 2011
forum/obituary
On one level, I understand this frustration. I
tpm n
This article originally appeared in issue 52 of tpm. You can subscribe at www.tpmagora.com
93